Title: The 11th Hour Directors: Nadia Conners and Leila Conners-Peterson Release year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is that we’re introducing numerous ecological problems into the world through our actions that threaten to change our society in a very negative way. The film focuses on the need to change our ways in order to save ourselves. It points out that saving the environment is ironic because the environment won’t die but alternatively we will die as the environment changes. The film then looks to technological advances as the primary source of innovation within society to alter some of these trends.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film attempted to cover a number of issues related to sustainability. Many of them were ecologically minded but focused on how these ecological changes will in turn affect the sustainability of our societies and culture. The documentary noted that there isn’t a single living system or ecosystem in the world that is stable or not decreasing in quality. Ocean dead zones are forming resulting from fertilizer and pesticide runoff from thousands of miles upstream. Seventy percent of countries in the worlds have zero old growth forests and the United States has lost 95% of its old growth. This can cause forests to turn into grasslands and then deserts through desertification or a loss of water content and nutrients. Practices of the agricultural industry have caused serious degradation of our soil in over 40% of the world. Our treatment of the oceans and ocean life with overfishing, bi-catch and industrial emissions could potentially cause entire ocean surface stagnation in the future. 99.999% of all species that have existed in history are extinct and we are bringing about our premature demise and causing 500,000 extinctions per year of other animals in the process. The film proposed that we need to consider all natural parts of the world as nonrenewable resources that should be conserved to bring about more balance to the world and to many aspects of the human existence.
They also looked into climate change and how CO2 and methane concentrations within the atmosphere are 35% and 150% higher than natural air levels. The earth has warmed by 7/10 of a degree Celsius and even if we capped CO2 emissions right now it will continue to raise another half of a degree. All of these issues add a dimension of uncertainty to the future of our society. Nature can already be seen to be battling back because of this climate change through increased intensity and quantity of floods, heat, hurricanes, wildfires and other forms of natural disasters. Up to 144, 23, 12 and 63 million people in the nations of China, United States, the Netherlands and Bangladesh respectively could be out of a home along with a ten meter sea level increase that could be caused by global warming. The film proposes that by the middle of century there could be 150,000,000 environmental refugees at any point in time due to these climate change effects.
The film noted a number of cultural problems that help perpetuate these problems. We no longer learn from direct experience or from the earth sources but instead we learn from sources far away from us about sustenance. Many people have lost their sense of connection with their environment. Nature is property in our culture; things are either people or property which enforces the idea that people are given dominion over the environment. Our modern society is also heavily dependent on consuming and growth. The average American goes shopping at least five times per week. We work and shop and spend and lose sight of what’s going on around us. We continue to use too many resources too fast. In the end this growth will reduce our quality of life as it destroys the environment around us. Growth is supposed to the means to the end of an adequate or increased quality of life.
The film also talks briefly about how politics and economics can be a contributor to sustainability problems. It notes that there is simply too much money in industry and in the political system. Politics are increasingly being held accountable to these massive companies. It looks at oil companies in particular which made a combined 33 billion dollars in 2005 which is equivalent to $105 for every person on the planet. The constitution needs to be reworked to meet the needs of every generation and because of the power these corporations have within our society it becomes apparent the nature needs to be given rights it previously hasn’t had.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Many of the section suggesting solutions to how we do things were quite interesting and persuasive. The variety of solutions and technologies that were shown were effective in sparking my curiosity and interest. The film pointed out how the way make things are 180 degrees the opposite of natural processes. The environment can’t afford extreme heat and pressure or chemical additives like many of the processes that are utilized in industry. One example that was mentioned was Mycofiltration or filtration using the fibers of mushrooms, mushrooms have the ability to hyper accumulates heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and other toxic substances and in the film it was suggested utilizing this behavior to filter water runoff. Some of the most compelling solutions were associated with infrastructure reform. The film noted that buildings account for 1/3 of all energy use in the world and noted technology such as double paned gas filled windows and microbial on site wastewater treatment among various other technologies that could reduce this impact.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The premise of the film title and much of the intro was in my opinion not very convincing. The title 11th hour seems to refer to how Homo sapiens are late in the earth calendar year and if earth’s history were summed up in one year our modern history could be sixty seconds and the entirety of mankind would come about at 1145pm on Dec 31st. It stated that we should probably be called a third strand of apes and the only thing differentiating us from other animals is our brains. We are the only species known to think about the future and understand that we can affect our own futures. This third party objectiveness of the human race didn’t seem to work for me. I took it more like they were trying to establish the insignificance of the human race which seems contradictory to a movement to increase the sustainability of humans in the future.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Overall the technology solutions that were presented within this film are what compelled me the most but many of these solutions are mentioned only very briefly or are only shown through diagrams or short illustrative videos. Therefore I would most desire to seek out information behind some of these solutions and technologies to learn how they work, where and how they might be implemented and if they are something that I could potentially involve myself in or with to reduce my impact.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film seemed to attempt to appeal to the common individual who isn’t necessarily environmentally inclined. With Leonardo DiCaprio as the narrator and various other “famous” cast members such as Steven Hawkins I think the film attempted to draw on some of these big names in order to achieve a larger viewer audience and reach the average movie viewer. This film covers such a large array of topics anyone watching it would be hard pressed to find an issue within it that doesn’t affect their lives.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film looked primarily to the implementation of new technology as the main action that should be taken to solve these problems that were presented. It is proposed in the film that the widespread implementation of current technology could reduce the human footprint on earth by 90%. They also pointed to areas of intervention that could help bring about the implementation of some of this technology. Incentives could be put into place to make some of these technologies cost effective as the technology is developed. It suggested lowering income taxes and increasing energy and pollution taxes and well as making the cost of retrofitting building tax subsidized or tax deductable. They noted this could create possibly up to 3,000,000 jobs in the construction industry while cleaning up the built environment.
The film also looked to lifting the levels of awareness among the general population about some of these issues. Widespread personal change can cause both small scale immediate advances as well as bring about future changes to cultural dynamics and politics. Buying things says we approve of what is being purchased and the film encouraged people to vote for the environment by buying sustainably. Our society can move very rapidly when it needs to, and the film believes were facing a far greater leadership issue than a technological issue. There are 1,000,000 environmental groups on earth today; it is the fastest growing movement in our modern world.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Overall the film was very informative and was probably one of the best documentaries I have viewed and in my opinion benefitted greatly from an obviously large budget. If people had only time to watch one documentary this year on sustainability issues I think this one is a good choice. The nature of the film also to a degree decreased the environmental education of the film. A more focused topic may have increased the likelihood of causing action from the viewer. I do believe many of the images and example will stick with the viewers but one example in this film could be covered in an entire documentary. Overall it may have tried to cover too much on a very complicated topic.
Directors: Nadia Conners and Leila Conners-Peterson
Release year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of this film is that we’re introducing numerous ecological problems into the world through our actions that threaten to change our society in a very negative way. The film focuses on the need to change our ways in order to save ourselves. It points out that saving the environment is ironic because the environment won’t die but alternatively we will die as the environment changes. The film then looks to technological advances as the primary source of innovation within society to alter some of these trends.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
This film attempted to cover a number of issues related to sustainability. Many of them were ecologically minded but focused on how these ecological changes will in turn affect the sustainability of our societies and culture. The documentary noted that there isn’t a single living system or ecosystem in the world that is stable or not decreasing in quality. Ocean dead zones are forming resulting from fertilizer and pesticide runoff from thousands of miles upstream. Seventy percent of countries in the worlds have zero old growth forests and the United States has lost 95% of its old growth. This can cause forests to turn into grasslands and then deserts through desertification or a loss of water content and nutrients. Practices of the agricultural industry have caused serious degradation of our soil in over 40% of the world. Our treatment of the oceans and ocean life with overfishing, bi-catch and industrial emissions could potentially cause entire ocean surface stagnation in the future. 99.999% of all species that have existed in history are extinct and we are bringing about our premature demise and causing 500,000 extinctions per year of other animals in the process. The film proposed that we need to consider all natural parts of the world as nonrenewable resources that should be conserved to bring about more balance to the world and to many aspects of the human existence.
They also looked into climate change and how CO2 and methane concentrations within the atmosphere are 35% and 150% higher than natural air levels. The earth has warmed by 7/10 of a degree Celsius and even if we capped CO2 emissions right now it will continue to raise another half of a degree. All of these issues add a dimension of uncertainty to the future of our society. Nature can already be seen to be battling back because of this climate change through increased intensity and quantity of floods, heat, hurricanes, wildfires and other forms of natural disasters. Up to 144, 23, 12 and 63 million people in the nations of China, United States, the Netherlands and Bangladesh respectively could be out of a home along with a ten meter sea level increase that could be caused by global warming. The film proposes that by the middle of century there could be 150,000,000 environmental refugees at any point in time due to these climate change effects.
The film noted a number of cultural problems that help perpetuate these problems. We no longer learn from direct experience or from the earth sources but instead we learn from sources far away from us about sustenance. Many people have lost their sense of connection with their environment. Nature is property in our culture; things are either people or property which enforces the idea that people are given dominion over the environment. Our modern society is also heavily dependent on consuming and growth. The average American goes shopping at least five times per week. We work and shop and spend and lose sight of what’s going on around us. We continue to use too many resources too fast. In the end this growth will reduce our quality of life as it destroys the environment around us. Growth is supposed to the means to the end of an adequate or increased quality of life.
The film also talks briefly about how politics and economics can be a contributor to sustainability problems. It notes that there is simply too much money in industry and in the political system. Politics are increasingly being held accountable to these massive companies. It looks at oil companies in particular which made a combined 33 billion dollars in 2005 which is equivalent to $105 for every person on the planet. The constitution needs to be reworked to meet the needs of every generation and because of the power these corporations have within our society it becomes apparent the nature needs to be given rights it previously hasn’t had.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Many of the section suggesting solutions to how we do things were quite interesting and persuasive. The variety of solutions and technologies that were shown were effective in sparking my curiosity and interest. The film pointed out how the way make things are 180 degrees the opposite of natural processes. The environment can’t afford extreme heat and pressure or chemical additives like many of the processes that are utilized in industry. One example that was mentioned was Mycofiltration or filtration using the fibers of mushrooms, mushrooms have the ability to hyper accumulates heavy metals, bacteria, viruses and other toxic substances and in the film it was suggested utilizing this behavior to filter water runoff. Some of the most compelling solutions were associated with infrastructure reform. The film noted that buildings account for 1/3 of all energy use in the world and noted technology such as double paned gas filled windows and microbial on site wastewater treatment among various other technologies that could reduce this impact.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The premise of the film title and much of the intro was in my opinion not very convincing. The title 11th hour seems to refer to how Homo sapiens are late in the earth calendar year and if earth’s history were summed up in one year our modern history could be sixty seconds and the entirety of mankind would come about at 1145pm on Dec 31st. It stated that we should probably be called a third strand of apes and the only thing differentiating us from other animals is our brains. We are the only species known to think about the future and understand that we can affect our own futures. This third party objectiveness of the human race didn’t seem to work for me. I took it more like they were trying to establish the insignificance of the human race which seems contradictory to a movement to increase the sustainability of humans in the future.
What additional information does the film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Overall the technology solutions that were presented within this film are what compelled me the most but many of these solutions are mentioned only very briefly or are only shown through diagrams or short illustrative videos. Therefore I would most desire to seek out information behind some of these solutions and technologies to learn how they work, where and how they might be implemented and if they are something that I could potentially involve myself in or with to reduce my impact.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
This film seemed to attempt to appeal to the common individual who isn’t necessarily environmentally inclined. With Leonardo DiCaprio as the narrator and various other “famous” cast members such as Steven Hawkins I think the film attempted to draw on some of these big names in order to achieve a larger viewer audience and reach the average movie viewer. This film covers such a large array of topics anyone watching it would be hard pressed to find an issue within it that doesn’t affect their lives.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
This film looked primarily to the implementation of new technology as the main action that should be taken to solve these problems that were presented. It is proposed in the film that the widespread implementation of current technology could reduce the human footprint on earth by 90%. They also pointed to areas of intervention that could help bring about the implementation of some of this technology. Incentives could be put into place to make some of these technologies cost effective as the technology is developed. It suggested lowering income taxes and increasing energy and pollution taxes and well as making the cost of retrofitting building tax subsidized or tax deductable. They noted this could create possibly up to 3,000,000 jobs in the construction industry while cleaning up the built environment.
The film also looked to lifting the levels of awareness among the general population about some of these issues. Widespread personal change can cause both small scale immediate advances as well as bring about future changes to cultural dynamics and politics. Buying things says we approve of what is being purchased and the film encouraged people to vote for the environment by buying sustainably. Our society can move very rapidly when it needs to, and the film believes were facing a far greater leadership issue than a technological issue. There are 1,000,000 environmental groups on earth today; it is the fastest growing movement in our modern world.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Overall the film was very informative and was probably one of the best documentaries I have viewed and in my opinion benefitted greatly from an obviously large budget. If people had only time to watch one documentary this year on sustainability issues I think this one is a good choice. The nature of the film also to a degree decreased the environmental education of the film. A more focused topic may have increased the likelihood of causing action from the viewer. I do believe many of the images and example will stick with the viewers but one example in this film could be covered in an entire documentary. Overall it may have tried to cover too much on a very complicated topic.